Slater somehow decides that sporting prowess is the measuring stick here, for whether someone should get name suppression or not, and that therefore the Olympian should be named because his sporting achievements are not as signficant as the kick-boxer.

Actually, and I've said this before but clearly it needs to be said again, the reason for name suppression in the case of the Olympian is to protect the identity of the victim, not the accused.

We've discussed here whether name suppression really does aid abusers. Not all name suppressions are created equal. Some deserve to be challenged. But this case, the one of the Olympian, would seem to me to not be one of them and I don't think Slater is helping his argument by continuing to harp on about it.